MAJOR derail from Screwball Thread

[jpholding]

yes everyone who disbelieves your fantasy novel of talking snakes, splitting seas, rivers turning into blood, sticks into snakes, god-men rising from the dead, and all the rest of the nonsense must be screwie ay .

Funny how you think making a list proves these didn't happen. You're like the naked native who says it is absurd that planes are said to fly.

What's wrong with a talking snake? We have you -- a talking jackass.

But really, let's see how smart you are. What's the big deal about a sea being split? We split seas all the time, dumbass -- we have these things called "dams". Are you so stupid as to think an omnipotent God couldn't do the same thing with directed energy?

Sticks into snakes? Hello? Last I heard, the transformation of matter on a molecular level, while technologically not presently possible, is hardly logically impossible. Or do you know something physicists don't?

So, what'll it be? Continued posturing with a side of "duh"?

[jpholding]

I said multiple times (over the last week or whatever) let's debate .... the whole thing. Is believing the supernatural claims made by Judeo-Christianity reasonable?

Yeah, Poodle Boy, so you can glitter generalities rather than debate specifics? Of course.

I'm absolutely confident it's not. I'm not a biblical scholar (nor do I have to be to debate this topic broadly)

"Broadly" as in "inadequately". Your tactic is to just vomit up slogans garnered from Hitchens and Harris.

. I know enough about human history, the patterns of religiosity, ancient mythology, science, etc. to know religion is nonsense (and I do know how to argue a case).

Do you know how to self-diagnose Dunning's Disorder?


Last chance Poodle Boy. Which SPECIFIC aspect do you want to debate?

Lack of mention of Jesus' life in secular sources?

Textual transmission of the NT?

Come on -- man up instead of hiding behind your water bowl!

[Darth Executor]

yawning poodle assumes atheism is true. To prove it he claims certain things can't happen according to his atheist presuppositions. Therefore atheism is true.

[jpholding]

OK then the new testament was wrong? They weren't ruled by the Pharisees (and they weren't dogmatic and theocratic)?

No, you frinkin' jackass. The Pharisees were nosy busybodies that ruled NO ONE. The Sadducees were the ruling class, and they mostly IGNORED the little people.

I have a professional career, and I know all I need to know about this nonsense. When I was religious I spent years studying theology (what a waste of freagin time that was .... but I digress).

Years of study, and you're still too dumb to know who was actually in charge at the time?

What General Mills products were you studying all those years, anyway?

[Stax]

yawning poodle assumes atheism is true. To prove it he claims certain things can't happen according to his atheist presuppositions. Therefore atheism is true.

I'd say that this is an accurate summary of his "logic".

[bridgeforsale]

Yeah, Poodle Boy, so you can glitter generalities rather than debate specifics? Of course.

hi bible boy ...... I bet you still watch Willie Wonka and the Wizard of Oz

"Broadly" as in "inadequately". Your tactic is to just vomit up slogans garnered from Hitchens and Harris.

yes of course it is ......

Do you know how to self-diagnose Dunning's Disorder?

is that where you enter a machine that removes a portion of your mind and compels you to believe ridiculous stories of talking snakes and god-men who pop up from the grave

Last chance Poodle Boy. Which SPECIFIC aspect do you want to debate?

Lack of mention of Jesus' life in secular sources?

Textual transmission of the NT?

Come on -- man up instead of hiding behind your water bowl!

For I think the third time .... is it reasonable to believe the supernatural claims made by the bible actually happened?

I'm obviously in the no, it's absurd camp, I assume you're in the yes, I'm as gullible as a child camp

[Darwin's Dog]

Hia all.
I used to be a lurker, but I guess such a thread just can't be resisted.I'm Stax's friend via an Instant Messaging service, by the way.
I couldn't be bothered to read such a big thread, honestly, so I read the first few pages and swiftly became convinced Yankee was an idiot.He blamed religion for deaths which is utter hypocrisy.Why?

Let me explain.(Quite a common error, that)

Once, Dawkins said he'd decline to live in a society shaped by evolution as a prescriptive principle, because such a society would be hell.However, he was perfectly happy to accept it as a good descriptive theory.The theory of gravity for example does not encourage you to push people from rooftops nor does E=mc^2 encourage Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

Religion's killings or Atheism's killings are immaterial to whether they're true, and it's about time we stopped going over that.

I'm an atheist, by the way.Politically pretty neutral, to be frank, leaning a little bit right.

Again, I've only read the first few pages and can't be arsed to read the whole thread as I am a busy person.It would help if someone could summarize it up because I'm quite keen to argue an atheistic position with all of you lot :D

Bring it on, folks.

[bridgeforsale]

Funny how you think making a list proves these didn't happen. You're like the naked native who says it is absurd that planes are said to fly.

What's wrong with a talking snake? We have you -- a talking jackass.

yes of course believing ridiculous ancient myths is the same as believing the physics (or the analytical dynamics) of aerodynamics?

I bet you went to the bathroom in an outhouse growing up

[Challenger Grim]

Do yourself a favor: drop what you're doing, head to the library, and check out some books on ANE culture, ancient Judaism, NT scholarship, etc. before you come back with more embarrassing tirades. Your spewing of information before you know what the heck your talking about doesn't cut it in the academic world. For people who have spent many hours studying what you haven't, it doesn't cut it with us, either.

No see, you're totally misunderstanding!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=28

It was a slow process, which occurred over several months. But the only thing it ended up requiring was a willingness to truly consider the evidence against religion. I then only had to ask myself what would a person who had absolutely no predisposition either way believe (assuming they were well informed)? It became clear to me that faith is not reasonable, but even upon realizing that I still hung in there for a while.

See? He did research for his satisfaction.

Of course... apparently his research has stopped cold turkey and no other evidence or data is allowed. I must admit to enjoying the dark humor watching as someone becomes they very thing they profess to despise. It just goes to prove... people will be dogmatic and close-minded no matter what the label is.

[jpholding]

yes of course believing ridiculous ancient myths is the same as believing the physics (or the analytical dynamics) of aerodynamics?

Yes of course just calling them "myths" is an actual argument. Posturing with a side of fries anyone?

I bet you went to the bathroom in an outhouse growing up

I bet you get your arguments from the bowl inside of one.

[bridgeforsale]

Religion's killings or Atheism's killings are immaterial to whether they're true, and it's about time we stopped going over that.

yes but of course if you read this thread more in depth you would see I was the one pointing out this fact all along. Of course your statement is correct -- it wouldn't matter if atheism was a truly evil system, it could still be perfectly true.

However, there is some relevance, because atheism doesn't claim to be anything. We claim to be neither good or bad, we simply don't believe one thing (theism). Atheists have ranged from men like Thomas Edison to tyrants like Stalin. Nevertheless is it logical to say a disbelief in something informed either their genius or their evil? Of course not. Inversely, religion does claim to be something, it claims to be good (and against evil).

When something that claims to be good and against evil is itself evil (and as an organization commits numerous atrocities) then it is valid to call that system into question. If "the church" is presented as a divine instrument (who asserts there's a god who will ensure she doesn't fall into error), isn't it logical to say, when she does obviously fall into error (and starts doing stuff like burning people at the stake) its claims strain credulity?

Think about it ....

[jpholding]

hi bible boy ...... I bet you still watch Willie Wonka and the Wizard of Oz

I've seen your biography, thanks.

yes of course it is ......

Once again, thanks for the admission of guilt.

is that where you enter a machine that removes a portion of your mind and compels you to believe ridiculous stories of talking snakes and god-men who pop up from the grave

As I said, we have you as a talking jackass, and that's far less incredible.

For I think the third time .... is it reasonable to believe the supernatural claims made by the bible actually happened?

No, Poodle Boy. It either gets down to specifics as I said, or you prove you're just a coward with no actual arguments to debate the facts.

But we know the answer to that. So until you pick a specific based on one of these soundbites you have made, the mockery and the beatings will continue.

I'm obviously in the no, it's absurd camp, I assume you're in the yes, I'm as gullible as a child camp

What you're in is the Historical Epistemology by Gumball Machine Camp. Have you not heard? Hume is a dead white man.

[bridgeforsale]

Yes of course just calling them "myths" is an actual argument. Posturing with a side of fries anyone?



I bet you get your arguments from the bowl inside of one.

well, at least I'm getting desensitized to the insults now (which is cool). I don't even feel compelled to toss one back at you?

[Challenger Grim]

Once, Dawkins said he'd decline to live in a society shaped by evolution as a prescriptive principle, because such a society would be hell.However, he was perfectly happy to accept it as a good descriptive theory.The theory of gravity for example does not encourage you to push people from rooftops nor does E=mc^2 encourage Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

Religion's killings or Atheism's killings are immaterial to whether they're true, and it's about time we stopped going over that.

I quite agree with you there. The problem arises from human society abhorring a vacuum.

If we don't take evolution as prescriptive principle, then what is the prescriptive principle the society is ruled by?

'We don't need one' some might say but that is folly. As Chesterton said, "the mother of all dilemmas is progress" (or something). Take the cracked article "6 insane laws we'll need in the future" (sorry, can't link per rules, go look it up) which points out current research and inventions that could royally upset society in the future. (say... designer babies)

Therefore, society is upset by some invention, discovery, etc. The question then becomes, "how does society readjust itself to this development?" That's where the prescriptive principle of a society comes in. They're like emergency protocols, they tell us what we should do in situations that haven't been planned for.

So then, when the world changes (like, AI finally takes over), which principle do you want everything to be built upon?

[jpholding]

Hey Poodle Boy. How about you admit your mistake in thinking the Pharisees were the "ruling class"?